Rosewood vs Skelmore

This case concerned a commercial lease dispute between Rosewood and Skelmore, focusing on breaches of lease terms and procedural fairness in court proceedings.

TLDR:

• Rosewood filed a lawsuit against Skelmore for breaches of a commercial lease agreement.
• Skelmore did not attend the trial, leading to a judgment in favor of Rosewood.
• Skelmore applied to set aside the judgment and sought permission to appeal, citing procedural unfairness.
• The court dismissed Skelmore's applications, upholding the original judgment.

The claimant, Rosewood, leased commercial premises to the defendant, Skelmore, for operating a fine dining restaurant in the Rosewood Hotel, Abu Dhabi. Skelmore allegedly breached the lease terms, leading Rosewood to file a claim for outstanding tenant payments, utilities, liquidated damages, and interest.

On 16 December 2019, Justice Stone delivered a judgment in favor of Rosewood, ordering Skelmore to pay various sums. Skelmore filed an application for permission to appeal and a stay of execution, citing procedural unfairness due to their inability to defend themselves at the trial.

An unusual aspect of this case was Skelmore's absence at the trial. Their lawyer, Mr. Hartridge, initially indicated attendance but later submitted a notice of change of representation, requesting an adjournment. The court did not grant the adjournment, and the trial proceeded in Skelmore's absence.

During the trial, Rosewood presented witnesses who provided compelling evidence. The judge found no merit in Skelmore's written defense and ruled in favor of Rosewood. Skelmore's subsequent applications to set aside the judgment and for permission to appeal were based on claims of procedural unfairness and the right to be heard.

The court examined the applications under Rule 174(3) and Rule 212 of the ADGM Court Procedure Rules. It found that Skelmore failed to demonstrate a good reason for not attending the trial and did not establish an arguable case for a rehearing.

The court emphasized that the discretion to set aside a judgment requires justification, and Skelmore's conduct did not meet the necessary criteria. The court also noted that the procedural rules are designed to ensure fair opportunities for all parties, which Skelmore neglected.

Ultimately, the court dismissed Skelmore's applications, upholding the original judgment in favor of Rosewood. The court ordered Skelmore to pay Rosewood's costs for the proceedings.